So when i traded away my 1st round pick for Isaiah Thomas, I get him for the rest of this year, but at the end of the year, he's a free agent, meaning i just bid on him as i would any other free agent?

PS - I am really going to have a good handle on this for the 2017-18 season, so just as heads up, beware... lol

Right again ...

That was the one thing that was discussed intensively before and during the season: players signed when over the cap will be on unrestricted contracts, they are free agents after the season. This was the exact reason Koncept wanted to trade those players, because he has no use for them this season (no play-offs) and can't resign them after the season.

That was the one thing that was discussed intensively before and during the season: players signed when over the cap will be on unrestricted contracts, they are free agents after the season. This was the exact reason Koncept wanted to trade those players, because he has no use for them this season (no play-offs) and can't resign them after the season.

Soft Euro, I am actually considering hiring you to be my capologist haha

Hold on, hold on. So if we signed 2 players after we maxed out our salary cap, do we still have the ability to re-sign those as our 2 guys in the off season?

joey_hesketh wrote:

Technically yes. Just everyone else can bid on them too.

This is not my understanding of the rule.

My understanding is prior to the draft you are permitted to extend 2 players on your team from your 2013-14 cap space.... it is kind of a form of Bird Rights BUT you need to have the cap space. Key thing is you have the ability to ensure 2 players don't hit free agency.

Those 2 players never see free agency because they have been extended.

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but can't a team that's over the cap now, still extend 2 players currently on the roster for the following season in the off season?

The rule states "At the end of the year you are allowed to two sign players on your roster to an extension for as many years as you want provided you remain under cap. This decision must be made prior to the draft."

I'm reading 'under the cap' in terms of my 2013-14 cap.. is that right? OR is the rule saying you can only extend 2 players if you have 'current' cap space. If it is the latter, only drizz, joey, and appollo are under the cap.

What Joey is now saying to koncept is the opposite of skywalker's interpretation and my own.

Those two players you assign 2013-14 cap space to - assuming you have 2013-14 cap space - should never have an opportunity for another team to obtain via free agency.

My understanding is prior to the draft you are permitted to extend 2 players on your team from your 2013-14 cap space.... it is kind of a form of Bird Rights BUT you need to have the cap space. Key thing is you have the ability to ensure 2 players don't hit free agency.

Those 2 players never see free agency because they have been extended.

Except koncept was over the cap when he signed these players according to his question. Therefore they are automatically unrestricated free-agents at the end of the Season. Has nothing with how much space he will have next season.

Matt52 wrote:

What Joey is now saying to koncept is the opposite of skywalker's interpretation and my own.

Those two players you assign 2013-14 cap space to - assuming you have 2013-14 cap space - should never have an opportunity for another team to obtain via free agency.

Actually thats not what I'm saying to koncept... koncepts scenario was signing two players after he was maxed out, and then wanting to re-sign those same two players.

While he still has the right to extent two of his players, the two that he signed while maxed out are unrestricted come this off-season.

Last edited by Joey; Tue Mar 12th, 2013 at 08:43 AM.

"That was Nasty right? Cocked that Joint back and banged on 'em." -James Johnson

Except koncept was over the cap when he signed these players according to his question. Therefore they are automatically unrestricated free-agents at the end of the Season. Has nothing with how much space he will have next season.

Actually thats not what I'm saying to koncept... koncepts scenario was signing two players after he was maxed out, and then wanting to re-sign those same two players.

While he still has the right to extent two of his players, the two that he signed while maxed out are unrestricted come this off-season.

You're not in favour of any rule changes? Or just this particular rule change?

Your replies sound like someone who asks a question and is not happy with the response.

If you are asking for opinions after you gave why you feel the rule change should take place and then replying to the response with the same arguments you originally made, well, I'm not sure why you asked for opinions in the first place.... especially when this is a rule change that directly benefits you.

I am not in favour of any new rule change that is going to give a minority of people an advantage over the majority of people who have set their rosters based on the old rules. Deciding to change the rules to make a benefit after the fact does not sit well with me.

If you are asking for opinions after you gave why you feel the rule change should take place and then replying to the response with the same arguments you originally made, well, I'm not sure why you asked for opinions in the first place.... especially when this is a rule change that directly benefits you.

Was just trying to have a discussion on the matter. Apologies.

And I'm sorry you feel like this is just so I can get an upper hand, and not because I am trying to make things far more realistic and fair for everybody.

Matt52 wrote:

I am not in favour of any new rule change that is going to give a minority of people an advantage over the majority of people who have set their rosters based on the old rules. Deciding to change the rules to make a benefit after the fact does not sit well with me.

Ok, you are completely missing my point at this point. And thats unfortunate.
And I don't appreciate how you are making this seem like I am just looking to cheat the system or whatever it is you are implying.

I am simply looking to fix a broken system.
And there are 2 others who agree something should be done.

Last edited by Joey; Tue Mar 12th, 2013 at 10:52 AM.

"That was Nasty right? Cocked that Joint back and banged on 'em." -James Johnson

And I'm sorry you feel like this is just so I can get an upper hand, and not because I am trying to make things far more realistic and fair for everybody.

Ok, you are completely missing my point at this point. And thats unfortunate.
And I don't appreciate how you are making this seem like I am just looking to cheat the system or whatever it is you are implying.

I am simply looking to fix a broken system.
And there are 2 others who agree something should be done.

Sorry when you ask for an opinion and you respond back after you stated your case by putting in your own arguments AGAIN I must have misinterpreted something along the way.

I'm not sure how I missed your point when you asked:

You're not in favour of any rule changes? Or just this particular rule change?

Once again I gave an answer after you asked a question.

The system is broke IN YOUR OPINION. I don't see an issue with the way things are. There are benefits to staying under the cap and you want to take the benefit for going over the cap and give it to people under it as well. In the NBA people who go over the cap get exceptions and minimum contracts to add salary. Still with the NBA, if you want to have the exceptions you need to renounce your cap space; if you want to have cap space you need to renounce your exceptions. You are proposing to make a double jeopardy type situation by having unlimited add/drops under the cap AND trade benefits when people over the cap adding/dropping are already risking losing any player to free agency and can't take back anymore years than they send out.

I'm all for keeping it as real as possible, clearly we have a difference of opinion on what is real and fair.

And as I said in the original reply if the majority want the change I am fine with it. Count me as a no.

If you drop (i.e. waive) a guy with multiple years left on his contract, the team that picks him up has to assume the contract and therefore have the cap space to pick him up.

If a team picks him up off waivers, the original owner is free from the contract.

If the player is not picked up off waivers the original owner is stuck with the contract and the player is now a free agent for first come first serve.

That is keeping it real.

Wasn't a similar rule already discussed and turned down? I thought someone had brought up that if you drop a player with 3 years for example another and another person picked him up off the WW, the amount of years the other person picks him up for is then subtracted off your total cap space.(i.e. you're at 40 years drop a guy with 3 years, someone signs him for 2 years, you're now at 38) and then once the player becomes a free agent his contract can no longer be subtracted from your total. I think the problem was that would be hard to monitor and account for so the rule stayed the same.

Wasn't a similar rule already discussed and turned down? I thought someone had brought up that if you drop a player with 3 years for example another and another person picked him up off the WW, the amount of years the other person picks him up for is then subtracted off your total cap space.(i.e. you're at 40 years drop a guy with 3 years, someone signs him for 2 years, you're now at 38) and then once the player becomes a free agent his contract can no longer be subtracted from your total. I think the problem was that would be hard to monitor and account for so the rule stayed the same.

If you drop a guy with 3 years and someone else picks him up, they need to have 3 years in cap space to do so.

The following season he has 2 years remaining.

The person who dropped him has 3 years subtracted off this year and 2 for the following year.

If he is not picked up then the contract stays with the dropper.

I honestly don't give a shit just trying to think of ways to add benefit to the people below the cap.

Reality is this is not going to happen very often as dropping guys with years happens very rarely and when it does it is usually due to injury.